14. On the career of Modestus, consul in 372, see PLRE 1.605-608. What is reported about his religious attitudes makes it clear that he was a time-server: under Julian he claimed to have been a secret pagan before 362 (Libanius, Ep. 804, cf. 791 ), but later he adopted the creed of his master Valens (Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 43.48; Sozomenus, HE 6.18.3).

15. As Gregory of Nazianzus complained {Orat. 4.84/5). Rufinus, HE 10.33 (994.21-25), goes so far as to state that Julian used neither violence nor torture.

24. Hence the un-Athanasian vocabulary which led Montfaucon to deny his authorship: M. Terz, ZNW 79 (1988), 266-270, shows that the language of the letter is no obstacle to joint authorship—and that the content fits the historical context of 362.

25. The phrase ¿noouoios Tpids appears to be a new coinage in 362, but it was soon repeated by Serapion of Thmuis, Ep. ad monachos 11 (PG 40.936), cf. M. Tetz, ZNW 79 (1988), 276/7.

32. Tomus 5.1-3, cf. Chapter VIII, at nn. 36-40. It is relevant that the theological statement forms part of the western synodical letter as quoted by Theodoretus, HE 2.8.1-54—who explicitly states that what he quotes was brought to Antioch.

33. As the concluding section emphasises (Tomus 8.2-9.1).

36. Tomus 11.1/2; Epiphanius, Pan. 77.2.1, cf. M. Tetz, ZNW 66 (1975), 218-221. The final line of the text presents a serious problem. It reads: eppwoGcti 0|ias euxonai eyu) Kaptepios, eafi Si 7TÖX€io? Zvpia?. The last four words are an editorial addition, and Opitz on 329.16 argued that Carterius was an error for Cymatius (as in the manuscripts of Hist. Ar. 5.2), whose declaration has been lost in transmission. Tetz argues that the text is complete, but that Carterius is an error for Asterius (221/2).

37. Rufinus, HE 10.31 (993.6-994.5). For a brief sketch of Lucifer's life after 361, see G. F. Diercks, CCL 8 (1978), xxvii-xxxv.

38. Rufinus, HE 10.31 (993.16-18), cf. Socrates, HE 3.25.18 (the bishops who attended the Council of Antioch in 363).

41. Ep. ad Rufinianum (PG 26.1180/1 ). Councils were also held in Asia Minor by the supporters of Macedonius, the former bishop of Constantinople, and Eustathius of Sebasteia (Basil, Ep. 251.4; Socrates, HE 3.10.4).

42. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 4.86, with the scholiast, implies that Pythiodorus also stirred up anti-Christian riots.

45. Rufinus, HE 10.35; Socrates, HE 3.14.1; Sozomenus, HE 5.15.3.

46. There is a picturesque story of how Athanasius outwitted the soldiers pursuing him up the Nile by turning downstream, sailing boldly past their boat, and finding safety again in Alexandria: Rufinus, HE 10.35; Socrates, HE 3.14.1-6; Theodoretus, HE 3.9.3/4; Vita Athanasii (BHG> 185) 26 (PG 25.ccviii); Photius, Bibliotheca 258, p. 484a25-b5; Simeon Metaphrastes, Vita Athanasii (BHG3183) 15 (PG 25.ccxliii). The final detail implies that incident, if it is historical, belongs to Athanasius' flight from the agents of Constantius in the late 350s—as Sozomenus saw (HE 4.10.4). But its obvious folk-lore motifs suggest that the story may be a 'Wanderanecdote' without any basis in reality: for discussion, see M. Tetz, 4Ztir Biographie des Athanasius von Alexandrien,' ZKG 90 (1979), 304-338, at 310-316.

48. On the text of Index 35, see M. Albert, Sources chrétiennes 317 (Paris, 1985), 265. Jovian is attested in Edessa on 27 September (CTh 7.4.9s), but he had arrived in Antioch by 22 October (CTh 10.19.2). Sozomenus, HE 6.5, states that Athanasius reached the emperor in Antioch.

51. Socrates, HE 3.25.10-17. Brennecke, Homöer (1988), 175/6, has demonstrated that the name of Acacius of Caesarea among the signatories of the letter must be an error: this Acacius was presumably the obscure bishop of some other see.

52. Basil, Ep. 89.2, later reminded Meletius that he had failed to take up an offer from Athanasius while he was in Antioch in 363/4 to enter into communion with him— but he neglects to disclose either the precise circumstances or the terms of the abortive offer.